Potential Statistical Oddity... (Lidstrom)

Not really part of any other debate that Lidstrom is a part of, but feel free to move.

If Selanne decides to retire, Lidstrom would become the active career points leader in the NHL. I don't have to time to check other potential players as I'm already 4 minutes late for leaving for work and it just popped in my head, but I don't believe Bourque or Coffey were the active leaders in their final seasons as Messier was still playing, so could it be possible for a first that a defenseman at any point in time had the most points of anyone playing? Not sure about Shore as he'd be the next likely player.

Sightly OT, but now that you mention it: The four active career points leaders in the NHL as of now are all Europeans:
1) JaromÃ­r JÃ¡gr, 1599
2) Teemu SelÃ¤nne, 1340
3) Nicklas LidstrÃ¶m, 1108
4) Daniel Alfredsson, 1023

wow, there are only four active players with over 1000 points now? If someone had asked me and given me five seconds to answer, I might have guessed 15.

Click to expand...

Don't forget Joe Thornton, he broke 1000 points late in the season. Still though, I get what your saying, and to make it even worse, the top 4 could all potentially be retired by the start of next season

edit:
Actually, looking at hockey-reference.com, there are 2 more, Jarome Iginla, who has 1006 points, and Alex Kovalev with 1024 points. Next in line to hit 1000 is Ray Whitney with 926, not likely to happen this year.

Well, this goes to say that maybe the 1000 point plateau is again turning into something we might not see out of very many players at all. It used to be an amazing feat, and was constantly devalued over the years as scoring increased. Out of players spending their time in the 70s/80s/early 90s I guess almost everyone with a decent career without injuries has well over 1000 points. Decreased scoring might reintroduce this arbitrary feat as a truly amazing milestone, instead of the more common feather-in-the-cap that it has been these last years.

Sightly OT, but now that you mention it: The four active career points leaders in the NHL as of now are all Europeans:
1) JaromÃ­r JÃ¡gr, 1599
2) Teemu SelÃ¤nne, 1340
3) Nicklas LidstrÃ¶m, 1108
4) Daniel Alfredsson, 1023

Click to expand...

Interesting. Those are 4 great players, but it makes me wonder if the batch of North Americans drafted around the dead puck era (arbitrary starting point admittedly, and meaning those who have been full time players during the period between the dead puck and the lock out) might be the weakest (relative to competition?) that we've seen in a while. During that period, the highest scoring North American players were guys like Sakic, Modano, Kariya, Iginla, Thornton, Recchi, Shanahan, Hull, Roenick (9 of the top 20).

Compare that to '50/06 to today, where Thornton, Crosby, St.Louis, Heatley, Staal, Lecavalier, Spezza, Marleau, Richards, and Getzlaf (10 of top 20), and it looks like a bit of a resurgence both in terms of productivity and calibre of player, imo (especially at the centre position).

Not necessarily drawing that conclusion, but it's interesting (in the context of "strength of league/competition" discussions involving different eras). A common assertion as to why the league has become more competitive over time is the addition of European players, but it seems like a less common assertion that I've seen - that talent pools from all countries ebb and flow (fluctuate) over time - might hold more water than many have recognized (I have to pee now). Hard to say that the overall level of competition in the league has been a constant upward trend through time, when the largest talent pool of players may be seen as having a dip during the period immediately preceding the lock out. Did a period of relatively "weaker" top North American players just make the increasing number of European players look better, or were the top European players really that much better than those who came before them?

I also wonder what people's opinions are concerning the strength of the drafts between the two lockouts versus the periods immediately before and after, especially wrt to North American draftees, and particularly the "top calibre players" in each. Lots of interesting questions that I'm sure won't/can't really be answered fully.

...it makes me wonder if the batch of North Americans drafted around the dead puck era...might be the weakest (relative to competition?) that we've seen in a while... Did a period of relatively "weaker" top North American players just make the increasing number of European players look better, or were the top European players really that much better than those who came before them?

Click to expand...

Confirms the stereotype of the soft, lazy Canadian who lacks heart. Whereas those good old European boys fought through the clutch and grab era to become immortal all time greats.

Did a period of relatively "weaker" top North American players just make the increasing number of European players look better, or were the top European players really that much better than those who came before them?

I also wonder what people's opinions are concerning the strength of the drafts between the two lockouts versus the periods immediately before and after, especially wrt to North American draftees, and particularly the "top calibre players" in each. Lots of interesting questions that I'm sure won't/can't really be answered fully.

Click to expand...

Well, late 90s drafts are generally considered very poor in relative strength. However, this is also the period the league more than ever concentrated on size ("You can not teach size"), most likely at least partially contributing to extremely high number of 1st round busts as players with flaws regarding hockey sense were drafted just because they were big.

The faults of Canada's development system at time (if one dare to call them such) are also visible as one looks the Junior World Championships between 1995-2005, which includes Canada's longest drought in WJC (after winning 1997 the next gold came in 2005 and Canada was left out of finals in 1998, 1999 and 2001). If my memory serves me right, some changes were taken in Canada's development system due the disasterous 1998 games (Canada was 8th), but it took some time untill the changes started to pay off (resulting in Canada's 5 consequtive golds from 2005 to 2009).

Interesting. Those are 4 great players, but it makes me wonder if the batch of North Americans drafted around the dead puck era (arbitrary starting point admittedly, and meaning those who have been full time players during the period between the dead puck and the lock out) might be the weakest (relative to competition?) that we've seen in a while. During that period, the highest scoring North American players were guys like Sakic, Modano, Kariya, Iginla, Thornton, Recchi, Shanahan, Hull, Roenick (9 of the top 20).

Click to expand...

I'd say it's partially a matter of players not fulfilling their potential. The following "should" have had 1000-point careers:

Lindros
Kariya
Allison

plus Euros...
Forsberg
Bure
Yashin

But for one reason or another, none of them are likely to do it. That would have almost doubled the number for next season.

Not really part of any other debate that Lidstrom is a part of, but feel free to move.

If Selanne decides to retire, Lidstrom would become the active career points leader in the NHL. I don't have to time to check other potential players as I'm already 4 minutes late for leaving for work and it just popped in my head, but I don't believe Bourque or Coffey were the active leaders in their final seasons as Messier was still playing, so could it be possible for a first that a defenseman at any point in time had the most points of anyone playing? Not sure about Shore as he'd be the next likely player.

No player who was exclusively a defenseman has ever been the NHL's active scoring leader.

Reg Noble was the NHL's all-time scoring leader in 1929-30. He was primarily a forward but was a defenseman starting in 1927. The vast majority of his points, through 1929-30, were earned as a forward, but I think this is the closest any defenseman has ever come to being the all-time active scoring leader.

Interesting. Those are 4 great players, but it makes me wonder if the batch of North Americans drafted around the dead puck era (arbitrary starting point admittedly, and meaning those who have been full time players during the period between the dead puck and the lock out) might be the weakest (relative to competition?) that we've seen in a while. During that period, the highest scoring North American players were guys like Sakic, Modano, Kariya, Iginla, Thornton, Recchi, Shanahan, Hull, Roenick (9 of the top 20).

Compare that to '50/06 to today, where Thornton, Crosby, St.Louis, Heatley, Staal, Lecavalier, Spezza, Marleau, Richards, and Getzlaf (10 of top 20), and it looks like a bit of a resurgence both in terms of productivity and calibre of player, imo (especially at the centre position).

Not necessarily drawing that conclusion, but it's interesting (in the context of "strength of league/competition" discussions involving different eras). A common assertion as to why the league has become more competitive over time is the addition of European players, but it seems like a less common assertion that I've seen - that talent pools from all countries ebb and flow (fluctuate) over time - might hold more water than many have recognized (I have to pee now). Hard to say that the overall level of competition in the league has been a constant upward trend through time, when the largest talent pool of players may be seen as having a dip during the period immediately preceding the lock out. Did a period of relatively "weaker" top North American players just make the increasing number of European players look better, or were the top European players really that much better than those who came before them?

I also wonder what people's opinions are concerning the strength of the drafts between the two lockouts versus the periods immediately before and after, especially wrt to North American draftees, and particularly the "top calibre players" in each. Lots of interesting questions that I'm sure won't/can't really be answered fully.

Click to expand...

Interesting stuff and no doubt the topic of future threads. couple of things I have noticed is that players greatness or lack of it has since scoring has coem down after the high point in the 80's been attributed partially to how well a certain player scores and it's possible that the canadain "top end talent " isn't as good as it once was but it's also possible for both scoring to come down and no appreciable difference in talent top end or otherwise.

It's been my experience on these boards that often people look at the surface of raw stats and not enough context is given to the state of the league players are playing in. Defensmen is the example that comes to mind here.

But like I said there will be much discussion on this in the future no doubt.

Interesting. Those are 4 great players, but it makes me wonder if the batch of North Americans drafted around the dead puck era (arbitrary starting point admittedly, and meaning those who have been full time players during the period between the dead puck and the lock out) might be the weakest (relative to competition?) that we've seen in a while. During that period, the highest scoring North American players were guys like Sakic, Modano, Kariya, Iginla, Thornton, Recchi, Shanahan, Hull, Roenick (9 of the top 20).

Compare that to '50/06 to today, where Thornton, Crosby, St.Louis, Heatley, Staal, Lecavalier, Spezza, Marleau, Richards, and Getzlaf (10 of top 20), and it looks like a bit of a resurgence both in terms of productivity and calibre of player, imo (especially at the centre position).

Not necessarily drawing that conclusion, but it's interesting (in the context of "strength of league/competition" discussions involving different eras). A common assertion as to why the league has become more competitive over time is the addition of European players, but it seems like a less common assertion that I've seen - that talent pools from all countries ebb and flow (fluctuate) over time - might hold more water than many have recognized (I have to pee now). Hard to say that the overall level of competition in the league has been a constant upward trend through time, when the largest talent pool of players may be seen as having a dip during the period immediately preceding the lock out. Did a period of relatively "weaker" top North American players just make the increasing number of European players look better, or were the top European players really that much better than those who came before them?

I also wonder what people's opinions are concerning the strength of the drafts between the two lockouts versus the periods immediately before and after, especially wrt to North American draftees, and particularly the "top calibre players" in each. Lots of interesting questions that I'm sure won't/can't really be answered fully.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of factors at work, but I would say the North American talent has been on the weak side during the last two decades, while the influx of talent has more than made up for that. Also, longer careers keep talent in the league longer. The low scoring due to rules, equipment and strategy changes didn't make the forward talent any better, especially following the Gretzky/Lemieux era. Look at the European talent born in 1969-1973, that was a golden era for European/Russian elite forward talent, just as 1961-1965 was for North American elite forward talent.

Looking at some of the top forwards by birth year, with North Americans listed first and Europeans bolded:

1992 Dream Team, filled with great players. Jordan (-63), Magic (-59), Stockton (-62), Bird (-56), Malone (-63). A totally dominating and entertaining team with some alltime greats. Way better than all of the opposition. Is it tempting to think we saw the NBA likes of Gretzky (-61), Mario (-65), Bourque (-60), Coffey (-61, I mention him due to his scoring) and others? We can also look at earlier players, like Chamberlain (-36), Abdul Jabbar (-47), who dominated, as did Gordie Howe (-28) and Bobby Orr (-48).

Compare with today. I don't follow NBA, but from what I've seen a German dominated in the playoffs (?) and Europeans compete much better today. Long ago, I think American college teams dominated the World Championships, and then the first Dream Teams did it.
The analogy have flaws, of course. USSR were stong in hockey already back in at least 1972. Other countries also were rather competitive. But looking at NHL and NBA, there are similarities in the way the leagues have went from North Americans dominating completely, to more and more Europeans being stars.

Do you think the NBA is weaker today? Are today's stars not of the same calibre as Jordan, Magic, Bird, Stockton?

Czechyourmath, good idea to bring birth years into the discussion. (But swap Peca and Wolski.) There surely are some big North American names born around say 1960-65.
Then, from say birthyear 1968, the Europeans start taking over more and more. Countries like Sweden, with a much smaller share of licensed hockey players, sometimes do as well as the Canadians.
It is logical to think that if the movement of Russians (and more Europeans in general) had started say 10-15 years earlier, we would have seen as many "bold"/European players born in the 1960s being top players in the NHL as there were Canadian. That may not have changed the domination of Gretzky and Mario (and Orr), but surely the relative domination by the other top players like Trottier, Bossy and Dionne. (Perhaps we would have seen Europeans winning the scoring races around 1980, just before Gretzky started putting up his 180+ numbers.)

How good was Peter Stastny compared to other czechs (and Russians) during the 1970s? From what I remember, there were other czechs similarly good, and of course Russians.